1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Reader - Online Commentary - B

 
 
 

European healthcare and taxation, civilization and colonization. The means of production and productivity itself. concepts of rational self-interest and what constitutes a debate? The issue of free will               

 
 
 
 

READER - VIEWER - COMMENTARY - B

*************************************************************************

Mark Allen

@Mike Pastor. K I think there is much we agree on. I think the Swiss model is much more applicable to the U.S. situation, born for healthcare and other regulations and approaches. They get very good results, with very different approaches that are philosophically closer to the US paradigms.

It's also easy to attack the US, but it's got a very successful history nonetheless. It's also paying for the majority of defense spending for all those small Euro nations that don't get invaded by soviets on a pout or other global threats size WWII. Not that cutting our military budget in half and putting that to healthcare would solve things, but I do think it's fair to say that some of the problems in the US are the abyss gazing back at us, you know what I mean?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I can’t say I find much fault with what you say, although I think we may have differences of opinion on scope. But again, without a great paradigm change in our leadership, I am not sure it will make an appreciable change, but it is certainly the right direction.

*************************************************************************

Neiloch

@Mike Pastor. K The problem is when people advocate for higher taxes on the filthy rich and stronger welfare policies it’s called "socialism" as a slam when this is exactly what northern European countries and even Canada do.

Anyone who thinks we want state-owned corporations or anything remotely resembling Venezuela just because we want more secure access to basic needs is either ignorant or arguing in bad faith.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Agreed. The problem is that socialism is not going to deliver in the long run, even if it can in the short-term. While the personal tax rates sound relatively low when you research, there is a real reluctance to put the taxes in a clear perspective. While a country like Sweden has a top rate of almost 60% and most pay closer to 20%, which sounds reasonable, they have VAT taxes of 25%, and social security taxes over 38%. This is compared to the U.S., which has an SSI of 12% and most states well under 10% with sales, and some with none at all.

I don’t want to get bogged down in the weeds, so to speak, but want to make it clear that there are many aspects at play here, and any attempt to bring clarity is thwarted by one side or the other, for ideological and political reasons. What we need is an honest and open debate, as we were all looking for, I assume. What we got was something else quite different. I learned very little about the essence of the morality of socialism today. I guess it will again have to wait for another time. My problem is that it has been many years, and much frustration. I don’t know exactly how many more instances I can experience. I don’t understand the resistance.

*************************************************************************

Contra Deception

There are people freezing outside right now, they are downtown
Edit: that’s harsh but if the freezing came to you would you open up? Could you trust they would not violate your rights?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I am not sure I appreciate whatever point was being made. Millions are having issues, on a daily basis. Possibly billions, if we look at it from a global perspective. I don’t see what the collective can do about it. The individual either, for that matter. We can only do what we can do. One day at a time, one action at a time.

But first, we need to determine what is the right thing to do, and then decide if we will do it or not. Opening our doors to every indigent person that exists is not the answer. I respect those that do so, but it is not practical, and in many ways, not rational either. If you are harmed in any way, how many hundreds or thousands of others will lose your influence, your abilities, your insight, and your resources? That would be what is considered a long-term view.

We have to determine a new paradigm, outside the box. We really have to teach those to fish who are able. The easy way is to give them a fish, and that may be necessary at times, but it is, unfortunately, not the answer. Reacting to these issues emotionally may be a feel-good issue, and work today, but we need critical thinkers, with an insight that does not exist today, that can address the real issues and work towards change. And that does not mean throwing good money after bad. Money is not the answer, although it never hurts. Reason is the answer. Philosophy is the answer. Integrity is the answer. Everything else is just for show.

*************************************************************************

Neiloch

@Contra Deception There are approximately 553k homeless people in the US on any night while there are over 10 million vacant homes.

The issue isn't people being hypocritical by not letting the homeless crash at their house.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   The answer is what? Let them live for free in someone else’s home? I am not sure that is practical. How about if you buy a house and give it to them? We did that in 2007, and guess what, millions of defaults and millions of empty houses, most of which lost value. A trillion dollars down the toilet. Could have gone to helping someone, right?

How about going out and getting all those liberals and socialists that care so much more than the capitalists, and get them to combine resources and get all those houses in the hands of those in need? Sounds good. But again, impractical. It is an issue of ownership of property that needs more attention. When you own a home, you usually take care of it. If given to you, it has no intrinsic value for you, and you put little or no effort into taking care of it. This is not to say that exceptions do not exist, only that you cannot ‘coerce’ or ‘force’ people to do the right thing, with no consequences of any kind.

2007 is again a great example. For the ten years leading up to that fiasco, I worked my property, listening to the offers flood in to buy a house, which used to be with a 20% down payment. I saw it fall to 15, and then 10, eventually 5, and inevitably 0 percent. Imagine being able to buy a house with no down payment? Then my mind exploded when the mortgages began to offer a mortgage for 5 and even 10 percent above cost. So, if I buy a house for 300k, I get a check for 330k? It was just insane. I should have pulled what little I had in my 401k and put it away somehow, but I didn’t and paid the price.

People took the offer, did not take care of the house, spent the extra, and defaulted. They were then given reductions on the mortgages for houses that they couldn’t afford in the first place. Still defaulted. This was not capitalism that caused this. It was greed, corruption, and total incompetence, not to mention political ideology and the search for power.

It is always the same thing, in one form or another. Do you have an answer for that? Without one, there will be no changes made. I have an answer. Philosophy. The problem is that my theory will not be implemented without the use of force as well, and that is not a part of that paradigm. Checkmate, or at least stalemate.

*************************************************************************

Frogandspanner

Binswanger:
1:34:14 "The Arabs do not have any right to that oil . . ."
1:34:33 ". . . It is the property of anybody who comes in and produces it."
1:43 "Do you have to take his blood [which would be useful to many others]?
By the arguments Binswanger used from 1:34:14, the blood is "the property of anybody who comes in and produces it."

*************************************************************************

bls001

Really? Because I saw it exactly the opposite way. He said that Arab citizens do not have personal property rights, such as what we have here in the U.S. which is an important part of objectivism, and an example of personal ownership of property is ownership of one’s body, what’s in it, and that it’s the owner who decides by consent what he/she does with what’s in it.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I would like to make some distinctions here. It is all well and good to speak of property rights, but we live in a world that does not lend itself well anymore to just going out and basically taking what you wish. I am not sure that was ever the correct way to act, but at the beginning, there was no one to really care. We now have an environment where the whole planet is ‘owned’ or administered by some form of government, some more legitimate than others.

In America, if an individual owns a piece of property, it usually means that it was purchased through the value of some capital that was created at some point in their life. That property has titles, etc., and it becomes his. If a house already stands on the property, he owns what exists in the house. If the previous owners left something hidden in the walls, it reverts to the new owner. Everything is owned at this point. This is, of course, only the way it is in the most advanced and structured countries. Much of the world does not enjoy this benefit, if that is the right word.

If there is something under the earth, whether treasure or resource, we have precedent that says it is also the property of the owner, and he has the tangible ‘rights’ to those resources, which he can sell or lease to someone else. I appreciate the complexity of the scenario, and actually believe that it is not an unreasonable way to solve the issues of ownership and usage. Because of that, I feel that this, at least for me, is the basis for the way I am going to look at these issues under discussion.

I, personally, have no rights to anything in any other country without some kind of contract or agreement with whoever has claim to that property. This means that ‘I’ cannot go and dig up and produce oil in the Mideast, or dig up gold or diamonds somewhere else. It is simply not mine. I am choosing to relegate issues about treasure hunters and salvage, where no one may have claim to property, and international laws that try to control those situations. I am sure I am overlooking a number of other events and circumstances, but I digress.

This also means, to me, that no country, including my own, or any company from this one or any other, also does not have the right to unilaterally ‘take’ or ‘steal’, if you are so inclined, whatever exists on or under, any of these ‘properties’. They can make contracts with the countries themselves, or with individuals that are considered to own such properties, but otherwise, no rights exist to confiscate or take by force any property of any other individual or country. I hope that we can agree on that or this quickly gets more complicated.

These Arabs, with the oil in the ground? Their country, with or without what we might call a legitimate political leadership, is the recognized authority in charge of the disposition of property, and I think that it would be the final say in all matters, for they would all be ‘internal’, directly related to the country or one of its inhabitants.

The rest is just simply derived from that. No one can just take the oil from them, unless the government agrees, or allows the citizen to make his own decision. I find it absolutely irrelevant if someone understands the value of what lies under his feet. I could have gold in the ground under my feet, and if I only find out on the day after I leave, it will be my own fault. But I don’t think that I do, and I am not willing to invest anything in the search or discovery for the metal.

I ‘understand’ the value of gold, but neglected to do anything about it. It remains mine, alone, until I sell the property. No one has the right to come in and dig it up simply because I chose not to. The same, I would think, applies to the Arab that owns the land with oil below. They may not know it is there, or they do but don’t appreciate the value, or even may want to save it for the future. His decision alone, no one else.

In lieu of personal property rights, then some regional authority may have a claim or something in between the individual and the state, who ultimately will determine how the situation gets handled. If they decide to let Shell oil drill, then that would seem to settle the issue. I don’t think it has anything to do with ‘deserving’ anything, or understanding or anything else.

I am not sure if Binswanger is saying something else. It seems he may be. If so, I am in complete disagreement, but would like more information so as to gain a more complete understanding of the issue, and construct a better response.

*************************************************************************

frogandspanner

By that argument, if somebody does not have any understanding of the value and property of blood then anybody can take it.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I find this example somewhat irrational. Taking a part of an individual’s body from them is against everything I believe. Some people might support such a thing, but it is really silly.

*************************************************************************

And because indigenous people value the land and environment in a different way from white man, white man can appropriate it.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   There is no justification for appropriation. Perhaps they know and understand the value and simply want to conserve or save for the future. It is a commodity and will probably increase in that value over time. In any case, not for some outside player to decide. That would be the same as taking away acreage from an individual that is selling it off parcel by parcel, as a kind of savings account. None of anyone’s business what he does with his land.

The issue for indigenous peoples is certainly a completely different perspective, but if a tribe of 10, or a thousand, that travel possibly thousands of miles ‘commuting’ from winter to summer ‘camp’ grounds, cannot expect to own both, and all the land in between. That is something unprecedented.

On the other hand, treaties were made with them by supposed representatives of the government, and the lack of integrity in keeping these contracts in good faith is something I totally denounce and condemn. I am no expert on the actual aspects of these treaties, but the arbitrary breaking of them was repugnant and reprehensible. I am ashamed of the behaviour, as I am of slavery, but without context, nothing can really be debated or argued.

Also, none of this has a single iota of relevance with our conversation about socialism and capitalism, and the morality underlying those philosophies. What happened to the Indians and the slaves had nothing to do with capitalism, albeit it was used to unscrupulous ends. Like a car or a gun, or even an airplane, capitalism was used in a manner that it was not intended, as a weapon.

*************************************************************************

His argument is guilty of petitio principii (begging the question) where he is assuming that ownership and capitalism are right in order to justify them.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   This may ‘beg the question’ if ownership and capitalism are appropriate in order to justify them, but there has to be some semblance of order, so if the buyer and the seller agree to the paradigm then it is legitimate. If not, there may be conflict. At some point, there needs to be some level of authority that can step in and arbitrate. The Objectivist wants an extremely limited governing body to do so, while others want an overpowering entity, such as an all-encompassing state. In either case, there has to be some structure or there can be no legitimate claims and actions.

In many respects, that is what we did not have in the development of America, that authority to keep the robber barons in check, and not allow them to confiscate and basically steal at will. Unfortunately, that limited government was at least as corrupt as the barons themselves. Justification comes from legitimate sources of authority. I don’t know what other alternatives are available without physical violence and oppressive power.

*************************************************************************

Bob Dener

@frogandspanner Considering how said appropriation went in the real world it is completely an attempt to justify murder, slavery, theft, racism, imperialism, and barbarianism in the name of "civilization". As such it should have no place in a "civilized" debate if it weren't for decades of conditioning that colonization was somewhat justified and the indifference in the west from the fact that it was done far away, people would have just thrown him out of the room at this instant and they would have done the same when Rand said it the first time.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   When speaking of justification there is also the matter of legal, political, moral, or ethical behaviour in relation to those actions. I reject without exception these instances to attempt to justify the application of ‘civilization’ on unwilling participants. These actions were in no way legitimate. There is no argument that can validate these events. I question what your point is.

We can talk about it in some form of rational debate, either now, in retrospect, or as it related then, as it was happening, but the forces at work were many, and complicated. There was no overreaching authority to these examples of local authority, including our own. We can condemn them for what happened, but I fail to see how that changes what is already history.

Do we look for retribution and vengeance? Repatriation and apology? The individuals involved have long since left the stage, and I don’t believe that those that discuss the issues today hold any responsibility for what went before. If new generations of offspring wish to confront the offspring of those who wronged them in courts to gain some compensation, then let them try. I am not sure it will be to their benefit, but go ahead and try, we are without a doubt a litigious society.

I am not sure that colonization was ever really justified, and yet, governments step beyond their bounds often, and it is rarely by intent as a country, but more a matter of individual ideology and malfeasance that these events occur. This is not to condone anything that happened. It is a call to arms to prevent even more inappropriate behaviour in the future. I am not understanding if you are referencing Binswanger with your comment, but who are you to throw people out for having an opinion. Be careful what you wish for.

As for Rand, you are going to have to be a lot more specific if you wish to be taken seriously. I think I know what you reference, but I find it hard to believe that you could mount a reasonable attack against her own comments. Feel free to try. Arbitrary criticism for unformulated interpretations does not reflect well on the speaker more than the target.

*************************************************************************

Ben Berzai

@frogandspanner Your statement was tested already. After decolonization, when middle eastern empires get their oil fields back, they didn't untap those oil wells built with 'evil western capital," did they?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I understand what you say, and agree to some degree, but it is the inappropriateness of the initial actions that are in question, and not the end result years afterward. It is a clear example of the ends justifying the means, and I unequivocally reject the premise. To have value, any actions must be based on rational means as well as a desired result. That would suggest that I would not condone or accept the whole concept of colonization without much more information on which to make a determination.

*************************************************************************

You should look at the productivity of those same resources from during colonization to after it when the "people" took over. Really undermines labor theory of value to watch the revolutionaries fail at running farms the same farms into the ground when the only change was ownership.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   This is demonstrable with multiple instances of the confiscation through collectivism of the property and the means of production of others, only to fail miserably in the attempt to do for themselves what the original ‘producer’ was able to do. Not that it failed all the time. There were always instances of those that could use the means once they were confiscated. Also not so easy was to create wealth, but usually, only milk it until it ran dry.

*************************************************************************

You should also look into how extensive the Arabic slave trade was. White people don't hold a candle to that. Start by googling "etymology of slave."

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   It is a continual source of frustration to see the characterization of America as the genesis of slavery when it was nothing of the sort. Slavery was a lucrative industry centuries before the existence of the colonies. There is no doubt, no argument, that the enslavement of one human being by another is a tragic and horrible existence. Always has been, always will be. The United States was a willing participant, but more as a consumer of a commodity, and nothing else. They did not search for nor hunt for slaves. They bought them from a slave cartel that existed around the world, and most conveniently in Africa, I guess.

It must be noted that those who were slaves, were normally killed before the advent of the institution of slavery. They were originally captives for whatever reason, and the only real alternative after conflict and enslavement is a life of slavery or death. It was only after the realization that there was a large market for captives, did it expand to families or random individuals.

The Arabs were instrumental in the industry, and in the context of previous comments, knew exactly what their ‘commodity’ was worth, and ‘exploited’ the opportunity. The slave traders in Africa were neither white nor Arab, but simply the victors in tribal and regional conflicts. To place all the blame on American interests is more than a little bit disingenuous.

It was a very wrong set of actions, and America took part in it but was instrumental in bringing an end to the practice as well, both at home and around the world. It is simply faulty thinking and reason, and ideologically based, that paints the U.S. as a primary player.

*************************************************************************

Behnood Baligh

As a Middle Eastern, I agree with what Binswanger said in this matter, and also the comments of @Ben Berzei here.
Owning something should be the result of the effort an individual puts to achieve it. It should be a matter of deserving, not based on the origin and the parameters, which one had no will, effort or ability to achieve or change.

Therefore, just living in a region, where the big resources of oil are in the ground, (but you have not enough understanding, knowledge, and effort to extract it) doesn't necessarily make you the owner of the oil. You must first produce the oil to claim its ownership. If the oil doesn't get extracted, it is valueless and practically non-existing for anybody in the world. Therefore, its production is a priori for its value and hence it belongs to the producer.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   The fact remains that you cannot confiscate the resource on a whim. It is not yours to decide to ‘use’ since there is a ‘taking’ involved. The ability to understand its value is somewhat irrelevant. I can own property with trees, and decide to use them for firewood, build a shelter, turn them into art, sell them to others for whatever reason, or allow them to exist for the pleasure of it, to appreciate the miracle of their existence.

None of these decisions are any of your business, and there is no imperative on my part to make any particular decision, and no moral, or ethical paradigm that allows you to make such a determination for me. I find this talk of knowledge and effort and production to be misplaced.

*************************************************************************

You couldn't say the same for blood in the realm of Objectivism. Because blood is necessary for individual life and the whole Objectivism is about respecting individual life. Even the importance of personal freedom and opposition to force derive from the value of individual life. (please listen again the beginning lecture of Binswanger in this matter.) However, the oil isn't necessary for the individual life (at least not in the magnitude of blood).

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I appreciate the comment about respecting individual life, but that suggests that I must respect the focus of that life, which is property. All of this narrative relates directly to property and ownership, but even if it is not clear, it is irrefutable that it is not mine to direct or to decide. I think there are some wrong rationales presented with this subject.

*************************************************************************

Ben Berzai

@frogandspanner The presumptions made are empirically bad ones, because after independence from colonization, there is no natural regression to before the colonization happened. Oil rigs still pump oil from the rigs the colonists built. But the quality of living ALWAYS goes down after independence because the knowledge to maximize it was just expelled from the country.

Even today, Saudi GDP is 42% oil and that oil pays for 80% of its total budget. Imagine how poor Saudi Arabia would be if Max Steineke didn't discover oil there?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I don’t argue the fact, but question the means to that end. If there was an ‘invasion’, even if only politically motivated, I find it hard to support the action, with the results being irrelevant. If there was some kind of contract or invitation to do so, I may find it acceptable, notwithstanding the legitimacy of the governing body and the philosophical actions taken by the players, which is always suspect.

*************************************************************************

King Hassy

@Ben Berzai your view of property rights is incompatible with capitalism then. For example if a person owns an empty building or unused land, someone can come by and seize it immediately as long as they put it to use.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Is this not a corollary of collectivism? Everyone shares ownership, so everything is available for expropriation and exploitation, but now by the selfless proletariat instead of the greedy producers. Some vague and undefined group-think with no experience and questionable ability will direct actions for that common good, whether you agree or not, and whether you like it or not.

*************************************************************************

If a union goes on strike and the factory can no longer produce, someone else can seize the factory immediately as long as they get it to produce?

A company can come to your backyard and dig for oil for free and if they find oil they don’t owe you anything? Not even the environmental impact of destroying your garden?

You're basically twisting yourself into a pretzel to violent your only principle - that of property rights. It's clear the only principle you care about then is greed.

*************************************************************************

(LCW) And every instance is the genesis for violence and coercion, the life-blood of the collective.

*************************************************************************

King Hassy

@Behnood Baligh they don’t have to own the oil, just the land. If I don’t give you permission to dig my land for oil, you simply can't extract it. Why must they give permission for other nations to occupy their land?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I’m confused. So you can deny ‘me’ the right to dig on your land, but nations are not so restricted? I fail to see the reason. If one owns the land, there is no question as to rights.

*************************************************************************

Behold Baligh

@King Hassy oh, it's easy. If you yourself were scientifically and technologically developed enough to extract the oil by yourself (and it would economically make sense to you to do it alone), it would be fine.

You could extract it and sell it to the world if you wish or just keep it for yourself. Because as soon as you take it out of the ground, it would be yours and you could do whatever you'd like to it.

However, in the case of my grand-grand-parents for instance, they themselves weren't capable by themselves to do so. Therefore they had just 2 practical options:

1. Just forget the oil and the benefits it had on their life and just move on.
2. let someone else who has its know-how do it, (in this case the British) and they get a portion of the cake which back then was itself a big breakthrough and game-changer for them. because in addition to the income and the oil itself, they got many other infrastructures like (better) roads, cars and trucks, local clinics and schools and the rise of modern Institutions like police department, law and order, city hall, vaccination, personal ID documents and so on. It even provided more interactions between the two cultures and opened possibilities for Iranian students to go to the European universities and bringing back many modern ideas like democracy and Parliament which led to the constitutional revolution.

So they could deny giving the permission, but it would be a much worse lose-lose decision with no considerable benefits for them.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I simply cannot accept any ‘end’, even with positive benefits, achieved through immoral and unethical ‘means’. From a philosophical perspective, they are completely incompatible. There is no amount of good that stems even from good intent if implemented through bad actions. If you believe otherwise, we have a distinct differing view of what philosophy represents.

All of these things are possible in time, and with consent. The acquiescence, and the acceptance of the coerced paradigm, institute a master/slave mentality that I reject unequivocally.

*************************************************************************

frogandspanner

@Enel, What makes one resource privately owned, and another not?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I will grant some validity to this question. It reverts to the governing powers in the particular region or environment. I can’t control what goes on in any particular country, but I can pass judgment on any outside entity, such as another country or even an individual or group, usually some corporate entity. The laws of the land prevail, as far as ownership goes.

Without property ownership embedded in whatever social contracts exist, then the individual gets no benefit since they have no power. If they have some collective power, then that will take preference, otherwise, the existing power structure dictates. This seems fairly obvious. We can talk in absolutes or in theory.

Either reason prevails, and there is probably some choice involved, or it devolves to pure power and force. It has never been otherwise. It is only marginally better now, with America as probably the most advantageous, but unfortunately, possibly the most corrupt as well. Talk about ironic.

*************************************************************************

frogandspanner

@Andrew Kyrouac What did I say that champions socialism?

I note that Americans often conflate socialism and communism. One aspect of socialism that I champion is social healthcare. In Europe, most countries have socially-run healthcare for all that results in better health outcomes than privatized systems such as the USA, for half the price.

And it sounds like you are preparing for the Black Swan logical fallacy.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   It seems you embrace the fallacy yourself. Why do people from around the world flock to the U.S. for healthcare even when they have to pay full price, which, according to you, results in inferior results for ‘twice’ the price? Why do these individuals not go to your ‘superior’ destination in the European sphere?

What constitutes a better outcome? What exactly is the price in those ‘preferred’ countries? The amount of information that you would have to produce to even begin to validate those claims would be insurmountable. The assumptions that you present are unprovable. Simply cherry-picking random statistics would not suffice.

You pay for your ‘benefit’ with more than simply money, and this result you talk about is highly subjective. I wonder what the doctor in these countries that regulate his salary to achieve some of these savings has to say of this. A doctor in America has no limits to what he can charge for his services. While it is messy, it is a component of freedom that does not exist in your reality. If you are fine with that, then so be it. But if not, it is an act of oppression. For the greater good you might say, but only when you are in agreement, and in the majority. Otherwise, not so much.

It’s quite simplistic to have such tunnel vision when trying to speak of disparate systems. You do not cover all the parameters, but only a single one, and proclaim that this makes your system better. I might also point out that you have no choice. I appreciate freedom, and at times that makes things more complicated and more expensive. It is a price that is either acceptable or not. I find that the system is wrought with shortcomings and failures, and they are usually human-based, philosophically based, and especially politically based, and this means fallible reasoning at times. But choice and freedom are preferable to regulation and authoritarianism.

That is what the capitalists have been arguing about all evening, to try and present their position. They are not saying capitalism cannot be subverted and abused. They do not say it is perfect, by any definition, only that they envision something better than what we have today, here and around the world. And they don’t believe socialism is the answer, and neither do I. if you really think it is cheaper, you are not paying attention.

If there is one thing that I have realized in life, it is that there are no free lunches. Somebody is going to pay for it, one way or the other. If your system was truly the answer, it would not be something to look forward to in the future, but would already have swept the world. Perhaps with the exploitation of your ‘version’ of capitalism, it will someday happen, but without true capitalism, it can’t exist at all.

*************************************************************************

Andrew Kyrouac

@frogandspanner It seems your making a false equivalence. There is no evidence to suggest that socialized medicine would work in the United States (in fact, evidence to the contrary), and just because there’s some evidence its effective in other countries does not mean it will hold true to the US. European countries and Canada are NOT comparable to the United States for a lot of reasons, and the evidence that they provide better healthcare outcomes is scanty, at best.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Spot on. One can choose to believe that their system is advantageous, on either side, but proving it with evidence is another matter. I am glad that you are content with your little paradigm, but I am more interested in discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of the system, and investigation into what works and what doesn’t, based not on pure opinion and faith in the state, but substantive information that can bring clarity to the why’s and how’s.

I am not looking for conflict or confrontation, but cooperation and engagement, and the sharing of ideas. That is the true path to comprehension and enlightenment and to the benefit of all. The ‘greater good’, so to speak. Is this not what you want? Is this not what the socialist proposes? Is this not what we all dream of? What we do in debate may be competition in some respects, but it does not need to be armed conflict.

*************************************************************************

frogandspanner

@Andrew Kyrouac OECD shows USA significantly worse in life expectancy for men in particular than Europe. Child mortality in USA 50% worse than UK. The U.S. has the highest chronic disease burden and an obesity rate that is two times higher than the OECD average. Hardly scant.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Call me a skeptic, but in my 68 years I have yet to not see almost all statistics bent to deliver the message that the individual or group wishes to present. Has the pandemic we just endured not been a glaring example of this? Do you really think that your present representation is any different? Your people in the street? These reasonable people on YouTube? If so, you amuse me.

America is the country people love to hate, and I accept that. That’s why so many millions of Americans have left and resituated themselves all around the world. Are you paying attention? That’s not happening, at all. Can you explain why not? We do have a great diversity of diseases, and we are certainly a bit portly, and no, that is not good for us, and we do pay the price. Freedom is messy, and overconsumption is probably another disease as well, and perhaps another symptom of capitalism.

But freedom says we can do it, and we do. What business is it of yours? Stay in your little hamlet and enjoy your existence. Nobody really cares. We have a lot of people here who point to the Europeans, incessantly, as the panacea and epitome of the realization of the socialist ideal, and yet they remain where they are, in this cesspool where we can buy whatever we want, whenever we want, go wherever we wish to go (with some challenges lately), with no real restrictions on the choices available to us.

We don’t have a huge VAT tax (although those liberals and socialists are working on it), and we don’t pay 40% into our social security (although corruption may change that paradigm very soon). People flock to our hospitals and our universities from around the world, they buy our products and watch our movies, and dream the American dream, even as they condemn our politics and our way of life.

That’s ok. We offer that choice, that freedom to do so, and we are proud of what we have accomplished and ashamed that so many had to endure hardships along the way. But the world would hardly be a better place without us. Whatever your opinion, Europe would be something quite different without the U.S., especially after two world wars.

Agree or not, the fact that you are speaking your own languages at this moment is a direct consequence of the ability of America to refuse the yoke of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. America was, and is, capitalism. It can be and should be improved and allowed to flourish. The fact that it may well not be is a cause for concern. It should be for all the world as well.

Without America, all that you enjoy will change, and drastically. Believe it or not, it’s all the same to me. It will be interesting to see what will happen, even as I acknowledge that I will not see the results. But while we are here, we need to engage and debate, and be a part of the solution, and not the essence of the problem.

*************************************************************************

Andrew Kyrouac

@frogandspanner Your gonna need to cite where you saw “significantly worse life expectancy for men” from the OECD, everything I have seen from OECD on life expectancies is relatively comparable (usually between the mid to upper 70s and low 80s. current life expectancy at birth circa 2015-2020).

Infant and child mortality is tricky, simply for the fact that it isn’t defined the same and measured the same across different countries, so accurate measurements are pretty hard to come across. Most sources estimate there are about 2 more deaths per 1000 children under 5 in the UK vs the US (4 vs 6). So saying 50% worse sounds bad, until you take it into context realize that’s only two extra deaths per 1000, a very small drop in a large bucket. Furthermore, there’s nothing to indicate the extra 2 out of 1000 deaths is because of poor healthcare or lack thereof

The chronic disease burden and obesity rate are true, however, to assume that it’s because we have worse healthcare is a baseless assumption to make. For example, obesity and type 2 diabetes rates are higher in the US likely due to lifestyle choices and the access to an overabundance of food, much of it cheap and unhealthy.

Yeah, we have an obesity problem from too much food, but I’d much rather have that than the breadlines, Democratic Socialists, like Bernie Sanders, want. Anyways, it also doesn’t even take into account chronic diseases that are incurable; socialized medicine won’t save you from that. And lastly, as I already said, there’s nothing to indicate this is a result of our healthcare system. In short, if you think we need to overhaul our medical system and spend trillions of dollars because of the points you just made, I would reconsider and look for new evidence.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   All good points and completely reasonable and legitimate. It is easy to cherry-pick instances to provide a defense for a position, but quite another thing to present comprehensive evidence to any particular end. Unfortunately, when speaking of these specifics, there is no dialogue going on as to the philosophical particulars that define the systems that produce these statistics.

That is what this debate was supposed to encompass, and it didn’t on the stage, and there is much digression in these comments as well. It would do us all well to refocus on the matters at hand. Philosophy, specifically the morality and ethical standards used to produce appropriate actions and policy for the benefit of the individual, and by extension, the society we live in.

*************************************************************************

Dennis K

@Prithvi B I investigated Objectivism in depth. It is devoid of humanity. Better reason?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Listen. The characterization that you hear from Dennis is nothing more than ignorance speaking. Do you hear any substance? Is there any value in these comments? It is the sound of the mindless. I am 68 and have not only ‘investigated’ but ‘lived’ Objectivism for over 50 of those years, and my perspective is that it works whenever the effort is made. I reject your ‘opinion’ based on those experiences. Your claim is invalid and lacks legitimacy, and, I might add, you back it up with nothing at all. I remain uninterested in your opinion. I look for your reasoned argument.

*************************************************************************

jlushefski

He talks for 5-10 minutes at a time in all his debates without making a point. He criticizes Rand using shallow arguments like "selfishness," after she has thoroughly defined and contextualized her points, as well as defending against such a simplistic label. He uses real-world situations to criticize capitalism, yet the ones he chooses seem to never even relate to capitalism itself (African corruption or violence for instance). He makes unfalsifiable claims about capitalism succeeding due to "programmed economies." One positive is that he has a good vocabulary. These things are taken from a variety of sources, not just this debate.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I find it difficult to disagree with your summary. I found much of his presentation truly disappointing and embarrassing. I think he talks to college students too much and thinks that incomplete thoughts are reasonable to entice and invite them into his world. For me, not so much. While it is true that he has a competent vocabulary, it is more than a bit obtuse at times, demanding time and effort, which most are not prepared to invest, into the translation of ‘what’ he says, and the substance of his observations are often incomprehensible.

*************************************************************************

haunted by the living

@jlushefski I am not a socialist. That said, I find little to no merit to what you have said about Hitchens. I have my own issues with him, none of which have you touched on.

If you wish to share a time stamp for this video and where he’s guilty of the sort of bloated drivel you describe, I will happily review it and either agree with you or offer my translation of the essence of his argument. I have watched a LOT of Hitchens and with all due respect, what you state here doesn’t resemble reality to me...

Exhibit A to support this is your response to this content in and of itself. I fail to see how you could watch this and describe it as you just did with sound and sober faculties. His issues with Rand are in fact stated coherently and reasonably. I see no evidence otherwise and you haven’t offered any evidence to the contrary. Again, I’m happy to respond to an example you’d like to point out, otherwise, you’re leveling platitudes, ironically the same thing you’re accusing Hitchens of. A clear case of projecting that behavior which you yourself are guilty of onto another.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Ironically, that is exactly what you are doing as well. Three paragraphs in and you haven’t made a substantive comment yet. I guess we hear different things. He irrefutably does not understand the concept of rational self-interest, although he probably does, but cannot, in reality, refute it. Where is this coherence you speak of? Please do not demand that I present specifics for you, as you sit there presenting none for me.

The post made a number of claims, any of which you could have responded to and refuted, but you chose not to do so.
I believe the claim that he is rarely specific in his criticisms is not without merit. There is specificity, but he rarely answers his own questions, and never those of his opponents. I find it difficult to believe that he gave you the authority to speak for him, so why don’t you simply make some comments in response to those already made and attempt to have a conversation?

Why is it necessary to attack the post instead of answering comments already made? In the end, you gave nothing to the discussion besides the crystal clear illustration of your opposing views to the capitalist, ad-hominem, but not to the concept of capitalism itself. Make an effort, put yourself out there, and say something interesting.

*************************************************************************

Whatever “context” that Rand defends her perspective from, it is assumed you are initiated, that is to say already familiar. Hitchens is not going to describe Objectivism in full every time he argues against it. That doesn’t mean his criticisms aren’t valid.

Of course he provides contexts that challenge Objectivism and highlight the failures. That’s how you test how robust your ideas are, and objectivism routinely fails outside of think tanks and dinner party conversations. I don’t have to read the Bible out loud starting from genesis to argue with one page or theme of its contents. I’m familiar with Objectivism, I find some of it incredibly true and important while I simultaneously understand and agree it has fatal flaws on a fundamental level.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I am glad that you find some value in Objectivism, but I am more interested in what you term ‘fatal flaws’. If you really wanted to have a discussion, we could already be thinking about them if you had articulated what they were.

I will accept that Hitchens does not need to explain Objectivism in full every time he argues against it, but he has to show, in some specific way, that he comprehends what is meant by rational self-interest before he trashes it. He showed no comprehension of the concept at any time during the debate, nor did Judis. As I have repeatedly said, you have the right to disagree, with reasoned argument, but to simply dismiss the concept without any substantiation in any way is not acceptable. You can assume that he understands the concept if you wish, but I do not find a single knowledgeable reference to the concept anywhere. Feel free to educate me where he did so.

*************************************************************************

For example, he doesn’t just “straw man” Rand by mentioning selfishness as you suggest here... he clearly assembles a case that acknowledges the validity of the selfishness instinct, describes how Marx took it into consideration as well but how abandoning the instinct of cooperation is just as much a myth as those who would orient themselves according to religion or altruism. He argues that Marx’s ideas came well before and were more well-rounded, looking at the problem from all sides.

When you advocate selfishness while seeing empathy ONLY as a force of entropy you are denying a basic human trait and truth about our species and society. Objectivism traded one mysticism for another. This is solipsistic sophistry at its finest and he’s right to call it out as such.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   The problem is that Hitchens himself only acknowledges comments made by Marx, who personally knows nothing about rational self-interest, only the arrogant and irrational self-interest that so many try to promote as what Rand speaks of, erroneously.

What does Marx know, first-hand, of Objectivism or Rand? Nothing whatsoever. Hitchens uses the connection of Marx as some proof of legitimacy to his own faulty opinions, which it cannot be since Marx died 22 years before Rand was even born, and he was pretty well finished long before then. You show your own ignorance of what she promotes with your own attempts at legitimizing Marx with your observations.

There is no abandonment of cooperation as you put it. Therein lies the rub. He shows a complete lack of understanding or knowledge of what he condemns. I really could care less if he disagrees, but he shows no legitimate knowledge of the subject. If there is any judgment by Rand as to cooperation, it would be only in the sense that she is against ‘forced’ cooperation, which to be honest, is not truly cooperation at all.

Cooperation is something that can only be voluntary and through mutual agreement to the end of mutual benefit. What is so difficult to understand? And yet, he shows no comprehension whatsoever, and you seem to be in complete agreement which leads me to the same conclusion.

As for Marx, he simply forces his square concepts into round holes continuously, trying to manipulate his own words. Where are the last two tomes of his historic trilogy? He gave up after the first one, realizing his own errors, and falling into a state of despair, a good euphemism for his collective paradigm, never to make another submission of any import.

*************************************************************************

Respectfully, anyone who wants to take part in serious discussions should think twice before claiming that Hitchens or Buckley or Peterson or Sowell or Rand for that matter are just stringing together fancy words... it immediately betrays a lack of engagement with objective reason, a lack of thirst for truth, a recalcitrance to new ideas and/or lack of conceptual intelligence.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   While I appreciate your comment, and applaud the composition, this thirst for truth of which you speak, where was it throughout the entire presentation? The focus, the only reason to be on the dais tonight, was to talk of the morality of socialism, which neither of them ever did. Not rhetorical flourish or superficial commentary, but the in-depth presentation of the fundamental, philosophical tenets of the ideology and the philosophy. Never happened.

I think the capitalist version was superior but could have been in more detail as well. Why is there such a reluctance on the part of socialists to speak from the heart, with passion and insight, to present a comprehensive and compelling argument for their own belief system? I did not see that at all. There is certainly passion in their dislike of all things Rand or Objectivist, but where is that insight and thirst for knowledge that you infer? That is what I am looking for, but it is rare indeed. It was the sole reason for my presence, to watch and learn. I watched a poor showing and learned virtually nothing about socialism.

Just a tired defense of Marxism, and an inadequate summary of socialism, and a total misrepresentation of capitalism and an ignorance of Objectivism that is incomprehensible. A great opportunity squandered.

*************************************************************************

I find that the best form of discourse is challenging the merit of someone’s position itself; describe how and where their reasoning fails and deliver a well-argued and clear antidote, line by line. That’s what Objectivism was supposed to be but stopped at the water’s edge.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I could not agree, nor disagree more. I see the capitalists indeed challenging the socialist mindset, and I see the socialist only attempt to deconstruct the opposition. They neither ask nor offer questions in the manner you mention. If only they would if only they could.

Therefore, I would have to respectfully disagree. Where did you see that? You say you wish to have a well-argued antidote, but you supply quinine. Where does the reasoning fail? I am open to discuss it, but you do not offer any real challenge. Objectivism, by no means, stops at the waters’ edge. I have embraced and practiced Objectivism for fifty years now. It is not only legitimate, it works pretty much every time. When it does not it is because of my own failings, and not those of the philosophy.

*************************************************************************

For example: belief in Free Will is an important aspect of Objectivism, but this is a faith-based proposition. This is just as much a myth as God, and the burden of providing evidence is just as much the objectivist’s responsibility and just as much impossible. Therefore if atheism is a dimension of reason, then you should apply the same skepticism towards the idea of free will.

So a thought system based on reason suspends reason to advocate for itself. This is cognitive dissonance and Rand has zero defense anywhere I look. This is just one of many problems I found with following Objectivism without making adjustments and allowing it to evolve past Rand’s intellectual limitations.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   You attempt to refute Objectivism with an unsubstantiated comparison to God. I find that amusing and quite disappointing. You demand some evidence from the Objectivist as to the existence of free will, and yet you offer nothing to the contrary. Like the concept of God, when you proclaim the non-existence of something, you also have the obligation to give evidence, and you offer nothing but rhetoric. The existence of God is somewhat problematic, but my very existence and the actions I take are evidence of free will. The words I write, my ‘decision’ to disagree and refute your positions are all acts of free will, undeniably.

And yet you create and offer something as well based not on reason, but a belief in the opposite, an expectation of failure when none exists. It is an irrational construct to compare God to Objectivism, but I will recognize that a certain degree of faith is involved, but not in the issue of free will.

Even science is based primarily on our faith in the experiments as well as the data we have to ‘interpret’ information and come to conclusions. And I do not, and I could argue Rand herself, does not negate the role of God, even if it is a possible delusion, in the positive actions of the individual. There is no evidence of God, and I would be the first to echo that sentiment, but the concept of a god is unassailable, for the simple reason that it ‘cannot’ be disproven.

No one needs to prove the existence of anything to you or anyone else. If I expect you to believe in God, then I indeed have an obligation to offer some kind of evidence, some credibility. But, if, on the other hand, I simply wish to believe something, whether reasoned or not, I have no imperative to provide any sort of evidence at all. My beliefs are my own and have no relation to whatever you may have decided for your own paradigm.

As to Objectivism, I have no responsibility to give any proof to you for the existence or legitimacy of the philosophy unless I make the claim that it holds some attribute. Then, and only then, do I have an obligation to provide some credible evidence to that end. Your opinion, and your personal wishes as to what I am responsible for or to, are less than irrelevant. I have the ability and the right to think what I decide to think and act as I see fit, and be judged by those actions. Again, you have no authority over me.

Free will is something that my perception says is real and verifiable. You ask me to pick up a book, and I say no, and refuse to do so. That is an empirical piece of evidence that free will not only exist but an example was just offered. As a matter of ‘fact’, our discussion, with its own examples of what we agree and disagree on, is simply more evidence that free will is being exercised on a moment-by-moment basis. Without oppressive force, there is nothing that you can do to control my decisions, which are each an instance of free will. I am not even sure what you are talking about. If you want to talk in some mystical sense, feel free to do so. My free will allows me to dismiss and ignore your attempts. If this is not only an illustration but evidence of the legitimacy of my free will, then I don’t know what else could be construed as such. The whole concept is somewhat infantile. We can talk of the nuances of free will, but the existence is irrefutable.
Rand certainly has limitations, and as you have just verified, others do as well, yourself being a prime example.

*************************************************************************

I find socialism to be a shape-shifting, wicked force but so is the unchecked and unmanaged capitalism that created a need for socialism through its reckless behavior. Everyone has a piece of the puzzle but everyone is promoting incomplete solutions because they insist on denying truths inherent in the opposing ideas.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I continue to hear these statements of unsubstantiated fact with each new comment. Who is championing any unchecked and unmanaged capitalism in any form? They have proffered multiple scenarios where control will have to be a part of the paradigm, but never unrestricted. Unregulated, yes, until and unless individuals fail to use reason and ethical means to achieve ethical and moral ends. Then, and only then, authority becomes a necessity. There is no mention of unchecked and unmanaged activity. You offer a false narrative.

You have made no references to any inherent truths in any form. You offer judgments with no corroborating evidence or reasoned argument, which is what you accuse others of doing, or not doing. I look at your observations and I have nothing to argue, nothing to question since you offer nothing of substance to investigate. You only make accusations, condemn, without any evidence, and demean individuals, such as Rand, with unfair and easily refuted whining and an invalid attempt to contradict and delegitimize something that you have yet to show us you even comprehend.

*************************************************************************

jlushefski

@haunted by the living I'll respond quickly, but gosh, this is not a great place for long comments. There are two instances I remember where Hitchens says anything close to concrete, empirical, testable, or falsifiable (speaking about "exploitation" in reference to Marx is an example of something I claim is moral philosophizing in a vacuum).

One is that capitalism leads to monopolies. Here are three examples, from very different institutions, where the exact opposite is the case: 1978 airline deregulation, 2019 California assembly bill 1505, rating agency restrictions during the housing bubble. All revolve around the same concept: if you take away performance accountability through government restriction of competition, the performance falls off a cliff, and consumers/users suffer.

The second was where he scoffed at capitalism success stories (I believe he said Taiwan, Hong Kong...maybe Japan...forget sort of) by calling them "programmed economies." First, what does that mean exactly? Second, they profit off the war machine I believe he says. Well, why are they profiting yet not others? He never provides examples, defines his terms and covers context, or states preferred policies really.

Lastly, I can't point to a time stamp regarding "fluffing it up," because the whole rest of the video is that. He gets about 6-7 minutes in, and he's still laying the damn groundwork, talking about his goal for the debate.

Sowell for example never talks like that in lectures or a debate setting. Every statement he makes is backed up by an example or statistic. Hitchens is little more than a pop culture journalist. He's not a rigorous academic/researcher. I would like to hear Dinesh's argument; I think that for another non-academic he is a far better debater of economics than Hitchens. I don't like or care about religion though.

Edit: Ugh, sorry, this is a different Hitchens video than the one I thought I was commenting on ['Christopher Hitchens - Capitalism & Socialism'], so my examples may or may not still hold, depending on what he repeats. I'll have to listen to this again. In any case, I find it odd that you have to validate yourself right away by stating you're "not a socialist."

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   While your observations are certainly not definitive, they do point to instances that belie the accusations towards capitalism. Again, it seems that these speakers only wish to present the arguments in a win or lose, black and white reality, when very little in this life can be so summarized. We need to talk about specifics and the reasons why they do or don’t work.

There seems to be a real reluctance, especially with our socialist friends, to do exactly that. As an Objectivist, and even moreso, just as an individual looking for information and clarity on subjects such as socialism, I am not trying to dismantle socialism in any real sense, I wish the speakers would say something definitive so I could possibly try, but they make all of these vague accusations and I am left with nothing to do but criticize the criticisms, instead of having a reasoned argument about substance. Very frustrating.

I find that I learn very little dueling with those that only want to fight, and not to convince or persuade me to some other perspective. I can only hope that others can see and recognize this as well.

*************************************************************************

jlushefski

@haunted by the living Okay, his debate section in this video is much shorter than the one to which I referred. Anyway, it is more organized than usual. He doesn't really go into economic particulars, which I think is important when you're advocating socialism. The philosophical argument for socialism isn't always a problem; it's the reality (yes, the debate is about that, unfortunately). It's not fair to deconstruct empirical "capitalism" though (usually in connection to world tragedies that rarely involve capitalism or even economic policy), then fail to provide something constructive or empirical of your own.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Exactly, I find that he, and socialists in general, are more focused on the destruction of capitalism than the defense and explanation of socialism, and this is to their detriment. Give us concrete examples of what socialism can do to produce a different result, not just fill me with this ‘vote for us and we will give you whatever you desire’ kind of speech. It is not inspiring and only creates skepticism.

*************************************************************************

His fourth socialism "necessity" is the most philosophically interesting, but to me, it doesn't have to conflict with Rand; the problem occurs when it's one's "right" to claim something from another.
You're right that Hitchens here doesn't use the common anti-Rand strawman of everyone's self-interests conflicting, but he does sort of imply that selfishness is incompatible with cooperation, which I don't think is true. I've let multiple friends live with me rent-free, but I never give money to the local homeless. I don't see either of those things as inherently good or bad, and one involves cooperation.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Inarguably they are not incompatible, and I would welcome the chance to see a reference cited that shows otherwise, real or imagined. The difference between the two is that this ‘cooperation’ in socialism is structured and forced through the efforts of an authoritarian power of the state, and in capitalism, but even more focused in Objectivism, through the efforts of individuals for mutual benefits by way of mutual agreement. What is cooperation if not that? I find it to be a non-issue.

*************************************************************************

Lastly, even though I said generalized socialism moral arguments can be okay, which are basically Christian principles, Marx (from 'Communist Manifesto') is misguided, misleading, and/or flat wrong when he ties the principles to economics. The most glaring counter-example is when you follow individuals throughout their careers: in the vast majority of cases, there is upwards [often significant] movement over time, but that is hidden from the raw data alone, where the income disparities appear to grow.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   An important insight that is invariably overlooked. An obvious omission, and one invariably that gets dismissed or ignored in the context of any conversation. The vast majority of individuals that engage in capitalism exhibit no selfishness that hurts another, and no exploitation of any kind to their own workers, no expropriation of any capital or property, and no coercion of any kind.

The fact that a small percentage of individuals and companies do that, normally with the consent and cooperation of corrupt government and corporate officials does not prove any connection between that behaviour and any of the concepts of capitalism. They do not believe this, they will not admit or even acknowledge any percentage at all that are legitimate, therefore rendering the socialist positions as invalid and illegitimate themselves.

*************************************************************************

Mike K.

@Dennis K you're only saying that because you probably have a Christian background. Objectivism is a different set of morals that is alien to Christianity. I happen to think Christianity is disgusting and immoral, and what objectivism teaches is much more interesting, practical, moral, and ultimately better for society.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Superficially you may be correct, but I could argue the opposite, depending on the individual and the extent of their knowledge into the Christian philosophy itself. Corruption exists in religion as well as in economics and politics. There are those that are involved in religion for their own personal interests, with their own ‘selfish’ needs paramount.

All of these things are populated by human beings, who are basically by definition imperfect and incapable of doing the right things all the time, and some not at all. That is why I promote philosophy from the time we come out of the womb, to make the attempt to produce a better product than what I see on the streets today. We need critical thinkers, irrespective of their views. Individuals that can argue without the need to hate. Those that can think without abandoning reason, and listen without jumping to conclusions.

People who actually want to do the right thing, and understand what that is, and even are willing to criticize their own camps when they are wrong and show that maybe camps are not the goal here, but finding a way to live together in some semblance of peace and tranquility. Otherwise, I see nothing but more of the same.

Christianity promotes many beneficial and rational concepts. One has to detach the whole issue of the Bible and the actions of grossly imperfect individuals over the millennia that have reflected badly on the philosophy. Being ignostic, I have no attraction to the religious imperatives of the ideology, but recognize the value in some of the teachings. Those disgusting and immoral attributes you reference are individual in nature more than anything else.

We have to look past the imperfect human beings involved and focus on the actual underlying philosophy, much like what we were supposed to do with socialism in this debate, and talk of concepts and actions necessary to achieve what we all want which is, I assume, being able to live together in some societal paradigm, with as much freedom of thought and action as possible, and yet in an environment of harmony and peace. It is inarguably an easier task to condemn and destroy our opposition, instead of true cooperation and intent to create a legitimate philosophy that allows us to do so.

*************************************************************************

Dennis K

@Mike K. We can do better than survival of the fittest. Also, I'm an atheist

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I absolutely agree. I am an ignostic, but was brought up Catholic and have investigated many belief systems. I am not sure if that factoid is relevant. If you are making the comment because of the condescension in Mike's Christianity’ quip, it should be noted that you are not what he characterized, as I am not, which makes his comment what? Somewhat ambiguous and only randomly credible. To keep it clean, it is invalid and illegitimate, at the very least. Prejudicial and bigoted, at worst. Why is it so important to bring the issue of religion into this?

*************************************************************************

Mike K.

@Dennis K it’s good that you're an atheist, but I’m saying your background. In other words, maybe you grew up in a Christian household, but for sure you grew up in a Christian society.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I like the quick change of direction. We have to give up the accusation based on the individual beliefs as presented, we insinuate it was a Christian ‘household’ even if you did not follow the familial lead, so we proclaim you grew up in a Christian ‘society’? We just expanded the comment to every single person that grew up in America. Simply an invalid comment. Apologize and move on.

Just for the record, I grew up in a Christian family setting. Both my brother and my uncle were priests, for God’s sake (rhetorical). Still not a big fan by any means. Don’t feel there is any reason to be. My brother was a good man, strong beliefs. We disagreed on quite a bit.

Christianity has many philosophical aspects that make a lot of sense and suggest that you could do a lot worse than follow some of them. Catholicism maybe not so much. Actually, socialism has a number of valid points, but like liberalism, I think that the underlying philosophy is full of false claims and expectations, and I abhor the way in which they intend to implement their beliefs and the lengths they will go to force other people to accept their beliefs, not unlike some religions.

Objectivism, on the other hand, has never made demands on me, I accept and reject as per my capabilities to comprehend, based on what I have learned through experience and contemplation, and has proven, time and again, sage advice under the most trying circumstances.

One does not need religion to be a good person, but for some others, it may be instrumental. I support those individuals making the attempt to be the best that they can be. Philosophy, for me, is undeniable. It develops and evolves over time, and gives a blueprint that you can be proud to base your life upon. It has helped me to be the best that I can be, and while I fail miserably at times, I am usually proud of my attempts, if not in all my results. If you can say the same, then I applaud your efforts.

*************************************************************************

So maybe you don't even see how deeply that influences your view of the world. Being an atheist is a good first step, but you have to go beyond that and completely reject Christianity’s teachings, which are not logical or moral unless you assume that the religion is true.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Thank you for your input, Obi-wan Kenobi. Your thinking is at fault across the board. I accept and acknowledge my life experiences, but while they are a part of who and what I am, they are not determinant, and it is ludicrous to think that you might be someone who could make a distinction, in relation to my own reality.

Really, who do you think you are? And you continue to give me advice, and that I ‘have’ to go beyond ‘that’? What is ‘that’? Why do I have to ‘completely’ reject the teachings of Christianity when many of them hold value and substance? Did you read some book that I never heard of? Have you actually talked to God? This is why I find it so hard to even consider socialism, that integral imperative of force that demands that I march to the drum of another. I resist to the death.

The religion does not have to be true to hold valid truths or concepts. It must be a real kick to be you. I wish you nothing but peace.

*************************************************************************

it's very logical to believe that socialism might be moral if you're Christian, because it's a natural progression from helping the poor and all that to believing that society owes everyone a living, and maybe the government needs to now do what churches aspired to do in the past.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Except it’s not so ‘natural’. Christianity does not preach that society owes anyone a job, so let’s quickly put that to rest. It has many things in common, that are difficult to refute, but many of those same sentiments are reiterated in a number of forms within Objectivism as well. We all have to remember that Christianity ‘borrowed’, some say ‘stole’, much of their dogma and mythology from those that came before, extensively, and from times well before the time of the Christians.

You talk like there are some absolutes here, and there are none. The train of your argument is bewildering. I have heard it before, so it is no surprise, but those others were just as mistaken, If we are pontificating and giving advice, I would suggest that more time be put into ‘self’ and ‘reason’ to bring some clarity to your own positions, as well as your own challenges.

*************************************************************************

So even if you're an atheist, just by living in a Christian society, you could then be easily influenced to believe that socialism might be moral. But if you're able to reject western religion and all its teachings, you could then progress to see socialism as an impractical, utopian sham that has never worked in the real world.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I like that, we agree. I am not sure how we got to the same endpoint, but it was certainly by different paths. And yet, I am the same as the one you advise, with a similar background, I have not done anything you suggest, and yet we find some common ground. What does that mean? It means your reasoning is not particularly wrong, but can be as often as it may be right, and therefore faulty nonetheless.

*************************************************************************

Dennis K

@Mike K. I've been where you are, Mike. And all I can say is that after years of objectivism, I came to feel isolated and alienated from my fellow humans. I now take food to homeless people, and it feels like a decent and worthy effort. Rugged individualism is no way to build a society. It might be great if you're living alone in the woods, but not in a city where we all have to cooperate to some degree. I'm not a religionist at all and have purged that influence out of my life across the years

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Ditto. The Objectivism, the alienation, the realization that we can all make our own contributions, in our own way, and try to comprehend the issues that are common to us all, through experience and compassion, and empathy. Again, each in our own way.

I have a number of issues with this rugged individualism thing though. Where does this come from? I consider myself a rugged individualist, and yet find that does not preclude me from any action that I deem appropriate, and at any time. I hear many individuals speak of this in relation to Ayn Rand, but I would have to ask, specifically, why you use the term in this context. No one mentions this in the debate, wrongly or rightly, and neither do I remember it in any comments. What is this supposed to illustrate?

I am not so sure about this rugged individualism. I found that to be more of a literary device used in her fiction to illustrate a point, not a dogmatic imperative in the ideology or philosophy of Objectivism. Make no mistake, it is next to impossible to build a society without those rugged individuals, independent of any other contributing factors. Whether it be in the arena of brute strength, in innovation, creativity, intelligence, and of course, philosophical concepts.

The rugged individual is that individual that we call the mover and the shaker, the producers, our true leaders, and an indispensable component of our survival. And don’t forget those that give spiritual direction, heal our bodies, teach our children, create and maintain our infrastructure. They are all a part of this collective that you all want to talk about. But it is based on a commonality of free will and completely voluntary actions. It cannot, and should not be one of coercion, a prison of the body and a gulag of the mind. There is a difference. The objective is to find it, and invariably, I see the path leads through philosophy and Objectivism.

I have lived in the deep woods, and I have lived in cities and everything in between. There is little need to cooperate, no more so at either end of the spectrum. I have never felt so lonely as living in the middle of downtown Montreal, or even New York City, where many city dwellers see no need to speak to you, while others treat you like family.

The differences are what constitutes the ‘individual’, and at times, that rugged individualist. You jump to conclusions that don’t exist. One cannot treat an individual as a part of a group, although, at times, they may be, and at other times it may be a necessity. They need to be treated as individuals, as a wonderful and exasperating culmination of a million experiences and doubts and beliefs. Anything else is counter-intuitive and self-destructive.

Mankind, possibly from day one, has been searching for that social component between us all, and it is compelling and sometimes obsessive, but we must put it into perspective, and realize that it is not the primary, but the secondary impulse to being human. The primary is the investigation and discovery of ‘self’. That comes through self-introspection, through the use of reason and thought, and, of course, philosophy.

That is where we inevitably find out who we are and ultimately results in a path to that social component. Without that self, realization is difficult to achieve. Once found, community gives us the ability and the opportunity to live together and achieve that which the individual may have challenges in realizing, with all the ‘individuals’ using their own unique skillsets to create something greater than might be done alone. These concepts are not exclusionary to one another.

*************************************************************************

Dennis K

@Matthew C I rather think "Yay for me, everyone else can suck it" is evil and immoral at its core

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Without a doubt, no argument. Whatever are you talking about? If that is your characterization of Objectivism and capitalism after all of this, you are on your own. By far, it is one of the most ignorant comments I have seen so far.

*************************************************************************

Jonathan

@Dennis K No offence mate but if you think that Objectivism is just being selfish then you don't know what Objectivism is.

*************************************************************************

(LCW) Hear, hear. The fundamental premise of rational self-interest is that there exists more than one form of selfishness. The rational, and what I term the irrational, to differentiate. If this is not recognized, and if one is not open to both concepts as being able to exist simultaneously, then there can be no meeting of the minds, irrespective of agreement.

*************************************************************************

I think Objectivism is the way forward and I have never heard anyone honestly and definitively reveal any flaws in her ideas that turn Objectivism on its head. It's unlike Marxism in this aspect where even the most narrow-minded people can and have taken apart many of his ideas.

Even another comment on this thread by @haunted by the living refers to Rands’ ideas as "solipsistic sophistry" which is completely incorrect and Rand has gone into great detail about this in her books and interviews which you can see on YouTube, so there's no excuse. I can only assume ignorance on the matter or deliberate misinformation. Even so...

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I find that to be true in many instances. She has struggled with this during her whole career, and has indeed made a great effort to bring clarity to the subject. If one is not willing to listen then it is all for naught.

Listen, and try to understand. If you need clarity, ask questions, but pay attention to the answers. If you disagree then craft a reasoned argument and bring it to the attention of someone with some knowledge of the issue. If you want to go home with an undeserved feeling of superiority, search out those of lesser intelligence and engage. If you wish to learn, find those that can give you something to think about. There are not that many other options.

*************************************************************************

"Some people hold that, while it cannot be proven that anything independent of one's mind exists, the point that solipsism makes is irrelevant. This is because, whether the world as we perceive it exists independently or not, we cannot escape this perception (except via death), hence it is best to act assuming that the world is independent of our minds."

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Call me crazy if you wish, but in my reality, existence exists. I act on that assumption until someone can provide me with enough evidence to make me question my own beliefs, and my own sanity. Either way, I will be the final arbiter. If I exist, then I am on the right track. If not, then it really doesn’t matter anymore, does it?

*************************************************************************

However, does this mean that we all have to act selfishly in the sense that most people think of selfishness? He is confusing Rand's selfishness or self-esteem with his own (and most people's) perception of selfishness. Those who oppose Rand's ideas always fall short here.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Without exception. Ask me what I consider rational self-interest, and compare it to your own. Perhaps we are both wrong, but maybe it is just one of us. Your mission, should you agree to accept it, is to figure out who that is. I have done so, and am perfectly comfortable with my conclusions. Rational self-interest is the key.

*************************************************************************

I give to numerous charities and I help people more often than I see anyone around me helping others. I'm for Objectivism and most of the people around me are for Socialism, so what does that say to you? I'm a nicer person and definitely more generous than the people I know who profess to be socialists and I'm not afraid to say it. Even if it sounds "big-headed", I don't care, it's a fact.

*************************************************************************

Dennis K

@Matthew C Save your breath. I read every syllable that woman wrote 40 years ago. I understand objectivism from head to toe. And I'm here to tell you that turning a blind eye to those suffering around you is cold, callous and inhumane. If that's the legacy you want, you're welcome to it.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Even if you ‘have’ done this research, it seems evident that you lack a certain ability to comprehend what you ‘ingest’. The comment is laughable. Your interpretation is deplorable. Do you proclaim that you read every syllable that the woman wrote 40 years ago? Really? With your very next words, you state that ‘turning a blind eye to those suffering around you is cold, callous and inhumane’.

Your own hubris and ignorance hoist you on your own petard. She never said anything of the sort, nor did anyone representing Objectivism or Rand. In fact, the impetus is the exact opposite, and if you read her work, any of it, you would know that. While I cannot claim that you did not ‘read’ the books, I can confidently state that your level of ‘comprehension’ was well below average.

If you ever read these words or anyone else who may, if you could produce a single instance that can be verified of Ayn Rand saying anything even vaguely similar, you would do your comrades a great service to do so, but we all know that will not happen. I continually find it incomprehensible to see, over and over, individuals make, not misinformed statements, but obviously dishonest and completely illegitimate comments such as these, with no compunction or self-respect for the fact that they are simply not true.

The self-loathing and self-hatred are palpable and troublesome. There is no intent to teach or to learn. There is only that vile and evil imperative, inside, to destroy and condemn, anything that they cannot understand or refute. It is the profile of the moocher, the looter, the parasite. My existence at times is frustrating. Theirs, nothing but torment and anguish.

*************************************************************************

Matthew C

@Dennis K that's what I meant about your inability to see past the obvious. I'm here to tell YOU that your support for socialism is nothing but ignorant and evil. People like you are destroyers of civilization and civilized behavior. You don't understand economics at all much less morality/sound behavior and are devoid of sound philosophy as well.

Those are crystal clear facts that you can't agree with because you don't know what you don't know or even THAT you don't know. Good luck and I did not suggest that you study Rand. Ludwig von Mises is much better. Read Socialism by Mises if you think you can handle the truth. After that, try Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (pronounced "Hoppah").

The world is in the state that it currently is because of increasing socialism over the last 100 years even in the U.S. Did you know that the diabolical central bank (the Federal Reserve) is straight out of Marx's communist manifesto? I bet not. In fact, if you're like most lefties, you are probably ignorant enough to think central banking is a capitalist institution even though nothing could be further from the truth. This reminds me that you should also read The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin.

Without any shadow of a doubt, you have been had big-time. This is why people like you validate the old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

*************************************************************************

Dennis K

@Matthew C I'm sure you believe everything you're saying, and you're welcome to your own conclusions. I disagree, and have done enough reading to form my own conclusions. It's at least good to see people discussing things of significance now that the bonehead era of American politics is coming to a close

*************************************************************************

MAVR

@Matthew C what a load of crap! If we existed as individuals and only thought of ourselves we would have gone extinct a couple of million years ago! We all need each other - this virus has reminded us of that!

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   It is truly incomprehensible that you never actually read what others say. You can believe what you will, but no one, and that means Rand, her work, those that have represented her at times, and those that have tried to bring clarity to your attention, has ever intimated in any way that we ‘only’ think of ourselves.

She has repeatedly laid out the thinking of rational self-interest, and it has nothing whatsoever to so with your interpretation. Some people believe that they can even kill to achieve whatever they think of as success, and that is inarguably an instance of selfishness, but not an example of rational self-interest, and certainly has no place in Objectivism.

If you believe otherwise you are irrefutably wrong and misinformed. If you are not capable of discerning the difference, I fear that you are lost in a socialist paradise. I hope that you find what you are looking for, but you will invariably have to hurt others to do so. I would like to be there when that realization confronts you in a place that you cannot run away from.

*************************************************************************

Matthew C

@MAVR you must be a child. Whether you like it or not, you only live your life, not the life of others. Each of us can only experience things through our own minds. Get it? Is a football team one entity or does it consist of many individuals who have their own thoughts, experiences, preferences, and concerns? Collectivist/leftists dehumanize everyone when they lump them into groups of their creation. This allows them to abuse and ignore the rights of each and every individual "for the greater good" or the group.

The paradox is that there is no greater good than the individual since every group is made of them. Are you or anyone else trash to be sacrificed for the herd or does each member of the herd deserve respect? Unless you're insane or have the underdeveloped frontal lobe of a kid under 25, the answer is clearly the latter.

*************************************************************************

George Nussbaum

Both capitalism and socialism have proven to be rotten and bloody societies. No perfect society ever existed. George Nussbaum

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Nice of you to give us a heads up. Do you have anything of value to offer, such as an alternative, if both are without merit? Can we fix these alternatives, or is something completely new required? Can you give us examples and let us know why?

The question is not if any perfect society ever existed. We are barely past our animal roots. The question is if we can come up with another viable option.

*************************************************************************

Matthew C

@George Nussbaum that is not at all true of capitalism if it is properly defined and understood. Free markets require a level (fair) playing field and that means a strong defense of the rule of law is necessary. The "rule of man" is the hallmark of all the various types of redistributionists (leftists) including those misleadingly called crony capitalists. Capitalism should not be used to describe cronyism of any sort since cronyism is anti-free-market and the domain of the left.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   For our socialists out there, let’s try something completely different. Instead of vilifying the comments just offered, how about if we read them, once, twice, maybe three times, and then answer the question, if what he is saying is accepted as the basis of a new paradigm, is there anything that you would disagree with, in principle?

Is there an issue with a level and fair playing field? Assuming fair and equitable laws as well, is there an issue with a defense of those laws?

If cronyism is defined as anti-capitalism and is disallowed in the system, is this acceptable to you? These are only three concepts. Let’s add to the mix with the absolute absence of harm done to another participant in the system. Problem with that? Let’s include an absence of force in any form at any time, against any participant, and only allow transactions with the mutual agreement of all parties. Is that acceptable?

So, in that vein, can we agree to the concept, or does this sound like an abomination and the worst thing that our society could have to endure? This is capitalism, this is Objectivism. This is freedom, this is wealth, and this is progress. What are the shortcomings, and please don’t start with healthcare.

*************************************************************************

A century of propaganda must play a large role in the knee-jerk negative attitudes so many have towards free markets when they become corrupted. Clearer minds would know better than to blame capitalism and would want to protect it instead since voluntary interaction with one another is the only moral kind.

Socialism in all its forms, on the other hand, IS corruption since it is based on the primitive principle of "might makes right." In other words, violence. Coercion and theft backed by the threat of violence (force) make socialism possible. Capitalism/the free market is logically in harmony with sound/moral principles and the inevitable problems brought about by a portion of the population will always be with us have nothing to do with anything. It is absurd to blame the best and only moral system for the deeds of a few bad actors.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I fear that this will be a hard sell. It is interesting that none will directly address anything you have said, but will reinsert their own versions of what they think capitalism is. They say that two monologues do not make a dialogue, and I think much of the commentary here is irrefutable evidence of this.

*************************************************************************

Capitalism is to thank for the fact that poor people today have a much higher standard of living than kings of not that long ago. Socialism is to thank for the greatest atrocities in mankind's history. Free markets have never brought about genocide.

https://fee.org/articles/people-are-less-selfish-under-capitalism/

*************************************************************************

Matthew C

@pocket83² One more thing, freedom DOES work. Not in theory but in fact. The more freedom a society has, the better off everyone within it is. That is an absolutely observable fact. Do you consider freedom a system? Because common sense should tell you that it is our natural state. Your system makes some superior to others ARBITRARILY and ALWAYS illegitimately which makes you a criminal to anyone with a functioning brain. I'm for cooperation, you're for coercion, yet I'm the selfish one?

I've even been called a fascist by more than one braindead leftist which is absurdly ironic since it's the lefty who wants to control others and shut them up while I am the exact opposite of any form of a tyrant.

*************************************************************************

pocket83²

@Matthew C Relax the defensive ad hominem. Don't be such a child. Do you want to be presented with legitimate challenges to your position or not? First, consider your opposition here: "your system"? I have stated none as such; you are the adherent, not me. The onus is on you to defend your ideological precious. I'm just an imbecile, remember?

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   You need to read the definition of ad-hominem since your comments are rife with them. While I will agree with you that Matthew could have done without some of his comments, you have yet to do anything dissimilar. It would be in all of our best interests if you could overlook his indiscretions and continue on with something substantive, which you have chosen not to do.

Even if he does not respond directly to your invective, simply take out a specific issue that he mentions and respond. That is what I am doing, well after the fact. If someone sees what you say, they will have time to absorb and respond as well, or perhaps just contemplate your wisdom. Is there really the need for all of this back and forth childish name-calling? Unfortunately, it only calls attention to the fact why these ‘debates’ fail to accomplish the focus of their intent.

Yes, I remember. So what do you believe in then? Are you one of those that only observes and snipes from the bushes? You have offered a lot of opinions, but not much substance. All of these observations, what do they mean?

*************************************************************************

Next, the mathematical problem: "freedom" may not be given boundless expression without necessarily allowing it to eventually impinge upon others' ability to exercise freedoms of their own. Think of a Venn diagram. This limitation is because the world is a finite sphere, with finite resources to extract. Value may grow on trees, and the industrious may pick its fruit, but there are only so many plots on which to grow. Man's move into space for limitless resources is hypothetical, an assumption that rests on the future existence of technologies.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Simply not true. No maxim is an absolute, and none come without qualifiers. Objectivism claims that your freedom cannot impinge on the freedoms of another. A complex equation by any means, but at least they see the challenge. What is your alternative? Is there one?

Venn diagrams, values that grow on trees, and our push into space are vacuous. What point are you trying to make? If you refuse to listen to scenarios presented by the capitalists and Objectivists, why in the world should we invest time in your little fictional musings? You suggest that you are here to offer legitimate challenges. When is that going to begin?

*************************************************************************

Problem #2: much of the defense of pure capitalism around here seems to be predicated on the past failures of socialist structures, yet no pure socialist structures have ever existed.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Ah, you’re one of those. No ‘pure’ capitalist structures have ever existed either. Stalemate. Time to go home, Mr. Pocket doesn’t really want to play.

*************************************************************************

In other words, the 'that wasn't actually capitalism' argument easily extends to its antithetical. How do you know that "freedom DOES work," when you have no historical basis upon which to rest the assertion? All economies thus far have been mixed.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Yes, but only some of them have been very successful, and in all cases, the component of freedom was evident. With socialism, no freedom ever existed, and no success either, pure or otherwise.

*************************************************************************

Address these two problems with a straightforward counter, and I'll continue with this discussion. Another evasion or pointless insult, and I'm gone. Either way, I'll lose no sleep. And no links. I'm not asking you for a Libertarian watch/reading list, I'm asking you to clearly defend your argument without lashing out at fair criticism.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   I am glad to see that you are making something of an attempt at discussion, but you immediately set out arbitrary and personal parameters as to the conversation, which you, of course, have the ‘freedom’ and right to do, but no one has to abide by them. It would be preferable if you simply focused on the questions and the arguments and tried to cut out the coercive, socialistic tendencies at controlling the debate.

Personally, I’ve already countered your comments so I guess I will have to wait. Bye, bye. You don’t get to dictate the parameters. That is your socialistic tendencies taking over. Do as I say, or I’m taking my imperfect circle and going home.

*************************************************************************

Mark Greg Sputnik

@Dennis K you may have read Ayn Rand, but boy you totally misunderstood her. You said that you like giving food to the needy, well Objectivism never asked you to not do that. The primary goal of objectivism is simple: You're free to do whatever makes you happy, as long as you respect others' freedoms. So if donating food to the needy makes you happy, it is perfectly okay to do so.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Why is it next to impossible for the liberal/socialist mindset to comprehend the fundamental of Objectivism? The reality is, if they did, they would have so much less to condemn and vilify. There is nothing that the socialist can do, using force to ensure compliance that cannot be achieved through Objectivism and the voluntary agreement between individuals, whether singly or in a group. I truly don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

*************************************************************************

Mark Greg Sputnik

@Dennis K Again, Objectivism does NOT say that you turn a blind eye towards other humans. If a man gets happiness by caring for certain other humans, then it would be in his own self-interest to do so. He would be following his own happiness while helping others too. On the other hand, if another man doesn't like helping others, he shouldn't do so. That's the beauty of Objectivism; you are FREE to do whatever that makes you happy (except of course violate another person's freedom)

*************************************************************************

Dennis K

@Mike Pastor. K To change one's opinion in the face of new information is the response of a rational person. Those who stick to a position even in the face of contradictory data are fools.

*************************************************************************

(LCW)   Are you speaking of him, or of yourself, and in what way? Who determines that new information is rational? Does contradictory mean it is right, and your own opinions are wrong? If one ‘sticks’ to a position that he believes right, and is in fact so, does that make him irrational or is it he who demands a change in opinion based on an unsubstantiated claim?

It is not for you to determine result, but only to try and persuade and convince. If you cannot do so, I see three alternatives, although there are undoubtedly more.

You may be right, and the person may not be rational enough to understand his faulty thinking, but in any case, is it not your obligation to continue and try? Otherwise, the wrong can never be righted. Perhaps your interpretation of the ‘new’ information is wrong, and you are the one that needs to re-evaluate their position, and possibly realize that at some point and apologize.

Or, there is no conclusive data, one way or the other, and the argument needs to continue, with a search for truth ongoing. Considering that you know very little about your adversary, is it even possible that their argument is valid, and is it ever possible that yours is not?

Could you not both be right, and simply looking at different sides of the same coin? And you could both be wrong as well, and need to continue the search for truth and reason? We need to do more discussion, and less condemnation and restrict the placing of blame, and more investigation and discovery of legitimate and credible information, as difficult as that may be.

*************************************************************************

You can find the continuation of this conversation in page C of audience comments